Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
R. Baker Kearfott wrote:
Sylvain, Have you considered Motion 2?
Shame on me, I had forgotten about it. It's now on my stack.
Motion 2 is in its discussion period, but there has been no formal discussion yet. Motion 2 deals with the structure of the overall document, by proposing a skeletal outline. The discussion period began on February 2, and ends on February 23. However, since this was concurrent with voting on Motion 1, this might have caused confusion. Also, February 23 here is the middle of the Mardi Gras ("Carnival") holiday here, and two of my sisters and daughter are visiting from the North. For these reasons, I propose extending the discussion period until March 2.
A one week extension is probably a good idea, it also fits nicely my personal schedule.
We COULD use the Vienna proposal, as is, as a starting point. However, the proposal in Motion 2, basically structure without content, is closer to the structure of 754R. Thus, we DO need to discuss.
Agreed.
I repeat Motion 2 here: ===Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure=== Proposer: John Pryce Seconder: required ===Motion text=== The P1788 Working Group adopts the principles set out in sections 1 and 2 of Position Paper PP008, "A proposed structure for the process of constructing the P1788 standard". ===Rationale=== For a rationale, please read Section 1 of the position paper. The paper is available on the P1788 web site. Note that this is a vote on principles, NOT on the detail in the following section 3 and appendix. P1788 members may see various defects of commission or omission in those, and are asked to point them out, as a separate issue from this motion. ===== Sincerely, Baker P.S. A listing of motions and their status can be found in the private area of http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/ If you do not have a password to this area, please contact me. On 2/20/2009 7:48 AM, Sylvain Pion wrote:I am a bit puzzled about how we should proceed now. Probably the officers need to propose a working plan, otherwise I feel the discussion not really focussed, and arguments get rehashed. Now that the preliminary motion concerning the editor's preference has passed, my view was something like : we next vote on accepting the Vienna proposal as the initial working document, and then we focus the debate on each separate point, in order to reach agreement by voting on each of these points, if there are proposals to change things compared to the current draft.
-- Sylvain Pion INRIA Sophia-Antipolis Geometrica Project-Team CGAL, http://cgal.org/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature